The existence - or lack of - a God is one of humanity's fundamental questions. Since the first birth, the first sunrise, the first death, humans have sought to explain the world around them. The whole of human existence, in the end, comes down to this: Is there a God?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
If we are talking about personal, superpowered God then it's not hard to tell without doubts - such God(s) does not exist. (Just like does not exist Earth in center of the Universe and everything else orbits around it.) And any atheist will stick to this statement until science prove otherwise.
- ctrnz
August 25, 2008 6:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Science deals only with the creation. It cannot deal with the creator because the creator exists outside the box of creation that science is trapped within.
The best science can do is say once there was a "big bang", something happened and a bunch of energy exploded into what we know as reality and cooled and formed the universe and created laws of physics that we have discovered.
Science cannot tell us what went bang nor why it went bang.
- james1951
June 28, 2009 11:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It is how you look at it. Science can deal with creator in psyholigical sense. Why we (humans) created creator (deities) in the first place. Also any school of philosophy takes chances on idea of creator as such.
However science may tell you some day in the future why there was big bang and what caused it. Like science told us that lighting is not an act of God and Earth is not the center of Universe. Scary thing to do is to do nothing in fields of science and teach our childrens scary stories about
gnomes and so on.
Even if we are in some kind of box and Creator is out of it - then he also can't interact with us.
But anything what gets into the box can be in some way or another observed by us and by our scientists as well. It's simple.
- ctrnz July 1, 2009 11:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
When Laplace published his theory of the formation of the Solar System, Napoleon Bonaparte asked him where God fit into his theory. Laplace replied, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis."
The answer to your objection should be obvious to logicians: no, it is not absolutely clear that there is no god. Nor is it absolutely clear that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster or celestial teapot.
The answer to "Is there a God?" cannot be answered definitively, period. Therefore the atheist position is and must be "[with the same likeliness that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster] there is no god."
- h3h
September 1, 2008 3:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Flying Spaghetti monsters make no sense, the possible existence of a Creator and speculation on ITS nature makes sense. Equating God.s existence to fantastical creations of the irrational is poor argumentation. Because we cannot prove a negative does not mean that, within the Laws of Nature and Physics, there is no God per se. We will never know for sure so atheists hold to the No hypothesis. Maybe we should all be agnostics...we simply do not know nor will we ever know.
- weedonald
September 3, 2008 5:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Yes, but the null position should still be the atheist position, not the agnostic position. Fantastic claims, whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be His name, amen) or a God, who created the Universe, exist, require fantastic evidence. Particularly when you claim that God created a Universe 14.5 billion years ago, to be at least 26 billion light years across 13 billion years ago (because the furthest galaxy we can see now is 13 billion light years away, and the light from there has therefore taken 13 billion years to get here), with about 10,000 billion billion stars, just for the benefit of humans on a tiny speck of rock orbiting a totally insignificant star. And yet this God is still around, listening to the prayers of his believers, and occasionally granting but usually ignoring them, without ever actually giving any proof of his existence. I expect that when I press the submit button, if there is a God, I will be instantly electrocuted for blasphemy.
- bachfiend
September 4, 2008 3:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
God created a earth with just 1 sun and no other stars, would it be a little lame? would you think it more likely or less likely that there be an intelligent creator? i'm thinking you're sugguesting that it would be more likely. now why would you think it more likely that a lame God exists?
these arguments are illogical and nonsensical, and you should realize this. The fact is they are unintelligent, arrogant, and 'presumptions.'
If you look at the Bible, what is stressed is wisdom, and honesty and humility.. here you lack all three.
- jxzac April 3, 2009 2:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Athiest man is not profound wisdom. To say to a person that there is the here and now.. it needs not be said. To see if you are humble and honest, and wise. those are substantial. Those elements are profound. How they would not exist without the greater essence. that is profound. blessed are those who believed and did not see.
- jxzac April 3, 2009 2:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Well, that's a pretty lame explanation. Who is god trying to impress, himself or us, by creating a universe with billions of galaxies. Just one, the Milky Way, with its 200 to 400 billion stars, would have been impressive enough, particularly since we only realised there were more than one galaxy only in the early 20th century, and we are most unlikely (what with Einstein's special theory of relativity, of even visiting the nearest star (other than the sun). Whatever good qualities you find in the bible (and I admit Proverbs generally is pretty good), it is still a pretty shoddy piece of fiction. I don't know how you can seriously claim your work of fiction is any truer that the sacred texts of any other religion that humans have made up.
- bachfiend April 3, 2009 5:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Are you kidding me?
Does that mean that PLuto did not exist until science discovered it?
Come on that is just silly. Of course the agnostic position should be the null position, because we just don't know.
But I am on the yes side because I have defined God in such a way as to be quite confident of Gods existence not as a physical entity but as a spirit of truth and righteousness
- james1951 June 28, 2009 11:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Science is an hypothesis as well. It is based on the perception that the universe is limited to what we can sense with our 5 senses and instrumentation designed to augment those five senses.
Right now there are thousands of radio and tv and wireless signals going past my head but I cant see or hear or even feel them because i dont have the receiver turned on or tuned to the proper frequency. But regardless of that those signals are there. WHat else is there that I simply do not have a receiver for or am not tuned into. Is there a "spirit of truth and righteousness" that requires a mind that can receive it and a mind that is tuned into the frequency it broadcasts on?
Many people have a "gut feeling" about what is right and wrong, where does it come from. Last nights Spaghetti :-)
Or is there a "spirit of truth and righteousness" is there a concious or subconcious concience that is more than just what we have reasoned from our life experience to be the correct thing to do. We are really good at justifying what we some how know is wrong. IMHO
- james1951 June 28, 2009 11:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
To be a true hypothesis you have to be able to devise experiments by which you can demonstrate if it is correct or not.
Radio waves (tv and wireless signals are all in the radio spectrum) cannot be seen, but can be detected and proven to exist.
- MrBook July 7, 2009 6:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
They cannot be proven to exist if
1. You do not have instrumentation that can detect them and and relay that information in a manner that our 5 senses can sense them.
2. If you do not have that instrumentation tuned into the frequency those energy signals are transmitting on.
3. There may be many other energy waves than radio tv infra red ultra violet light rays. Thought waves for example, we cannot even read thought waves who, who knows what other energy signals are out there that we simply cannot detect withn our current detection facilities.
Just because you don't know its there does not mean it doesn't exist.
- james1951 July 7, 2009 8:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"
1. You do not have instrumentation that can detect them and and relay that information in a manner that our 5 senses can sense them.
"
yes, that is true... however considering that we know that there are radio broadcasts going on near by (even though I do not have my cell phone on me I know that it gets a signal where I am sitting) I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that there are radio waves passing through me right now.
"
2. If you do not have that instrumentation tuned into the frequency those energy signals are transmitting on.
"
That is a strange way to put it... but again, yes.
"
3. There may be many other energy waves than radio tv infra red ultra violet light rays.
"
getting stranger now, but also true... there are sound waves to consider for one.
"
Thought waves for example, we cannot even read thought waves
"
Que? It depends on what you mean by 'Thought Waves'... if you are talking about the frequency of electrical signals traveling through the brain you are correct in that we cannot 'read' them. We can detect them but we cannot interpret them.
"
who knows what other energy signals are out there that we simply cannot detect withn our current detection facilities.
"
Also true, however that reasoning allows for an infinite number of possibilities... We 'could' be organic robots controlled by tachyon signals being projected from Saturn.
"
Just because you don't know its there does not mean it doesn't exist.
"
Can't the same thing be said for Unicorns and underwear gnomes?
- MrBook July 9, 2009 6:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
An odd objection, seeing as your argument is God exists.
- Blue Linchpin December 16, 2008 12:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It is an assertion, not an argument. Regardless of whether one is open to the possiblity of God's existence, it is quite a stretch to assert that it is clear that a being with those god -like characteristics does not exist.
- ghanastudent May 17, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Is it not also quite a stretch to assert that something of that nature DOES exist?
Any concept could be concocted and then defended on the basis of insufficient evidence to the contrary, but without evidence backing said concoction (save for gaps in human understanding), what's to say that it's valid or even worth considering?
- MisterPD July 17, 2009 8:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I never doubt that there is no tooth fairy.
I never doubt that there is ground beneath my feet.
Similarly, I never doubt that this hugely imaginative " god " thing is an outright fabrication.
Doubt doesn't happen in situations where the right answer is so blindingly obvious that the only way around the truth is imaginative fabrication.
- MisterPD July 17, 2009 8:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
The Definition of 'God'
- From American Atheists
By American Atheists - An Educational Organization for Atheists
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sine qua non.........
It is philosophically,logically and scientifically impossible to prove that God exists or does not, for the following reasons:
1) A supreme Being is totally perfect therefore cannot be measured, defined or even " sampled" as per the scientific method,but if we could...
2) God, if he or she exists, is above dimensional space and time (metaphysical) therefore being above and beyond our capacity to understand or even interpet any supposed " meausrements" or information we could obtain using scientific analysis.In other words we wouldn't be able to understand or inerpret any evidence for God, even if we had some that was scientifically valid.
3) We cannot , by definition ever understand or know The First Cause (God) because we are only capable of anthropomorphizing any Creator or Force that is metaphysically beyond us. In other words, we give a Divine Supreme Being characteristics that are entirely human such as emotions: anger,jealousy, pity, and physical attributes .
- weedonald
July 25, 2008 9:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
anthropomorphizing
What if He (the First Cause, as you put it) anthropomorphized himself for us? So we could understand him?
- reb412 August 30, 2008 11:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anthropomorphizing
According to Christians, God did become man, in an understandable, historically provable and recognizable form(Jesus), thus anthropormophizing Himself totally. However, it doesn`t help us to prove His existence since proving Jesus was God (or the son of God) is still beyond our abilities.
- weedonald
September 3, 2008 5:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jesus the son of God
Jesus is a character in a story that attempts to show what God would do if he was a man IMHO.
Did he ever really exist ? There is no proof you can CHOOSE to believe He did or you can choose to believe he didn't. To me it is irrelevant based on my only now exists post. He does exist now for me however. Based on the words and actions attributed to this character and my understanding of the teachings attributed to him he is a reality and part of my way of thinking.
John says it so well, In the beginning was the WORD our first awaremess of the concept of TRUTH and the word became flesh and dwelt among men.
Jesus represents the Truth of God. Which he synthesized from the ten commandments each of which represented one of these two concepts from Jesus.
1. Love truth and righteousness above all else.
2. Love others.
William Booth the founder of the salvation army was forced to synthesize it even further when asked what ONE word would he leave to his followers. The word was not God, the word was not Jesus, The word was not even Love. The one word he left was the word OTHERS! Because the truth is in order to have peace and understanding we really need to think about OTHERS and not be selfish.
- james1951
June 28, 2009 11:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The First Cause?
This ties in nicely with my perception of there only being NOW. The past is forever gone except for "memories"(not so reliable memories) I NOW have and the future has not arrived except for hopes and plans I have NOW that it will arrive in a way I would like it to. But in reality I wave only this milli micro moment to DO anything that might create a future NOW.
As the bible put it.
These three remain
FAITH - that what I now think I remember actually was
HOPE - that what I wantand am now planning will actually occur
and LOVE and the greatest of these is love because it is what I can do NOW based on my memory of a past to create the future I am hoping will come into existence.
- james1951
June 28, 2009 11:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A non-universal assumption
You make the assumption that God created matter and therefore created the universe. Have you ever considered the idea that God simply organized existing matter to form (not create) the universe?
Your assumption does not hold for all faiths.
- cmseth
August 3, 2008 6:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No assumptions allowed
I never made such an assumption...We cannot even assume God exists, less so that He is the creator of all we know and the unknown. If God exists, He or She or IT may in fact have ordered existing matter but the problem lies in explaining who created matter BEFORE the supreme Being and how can a Being be Supreme if it came into existence after matter!
- weedonald
September 3, 2008 5:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Clear?
Why is that answer clear? Seems to raise more questions than answer them.
- reb412 August 30, 2008 11:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Clarity
It isn`t clear and it does raise more questions than answers since there is no definitive answer...only limiting questions about an unlimited thesis.
- weedonald
September 3, 2008 5:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why does the universe have to be clear to you?
Why does it have to be so simple? Because you want it to be...
I think lots of religious people are like that, they want a quick, succinct, all-encompassing answer to where we came from, what are we doing here, and what happens to us after we die. Sorry things can't be explained so easily for you. Try opening a science book and actually learning about what few things we have managed to understand about the universe. I'm sure it's just scratching the surface.
- GermyJ
May 19, 2009 2:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
until science prove otherwise
Since when is science the absolute definitive? Science has, indeed, proved itself wrong time and time again. Is omniscience part of the human condition? Science is a human-created and pursued enterprise and scientists that we trust will be the first to tell you that they are NOT omniscient. We are limited by our own humanity. Scientists will also tell you that their art is lacking in final proofs and that their best endeavors are based upon theories that are suspect. Why investigate anything that is absolutely proven? We are limited to the observations of our five senses and the tools that we use to enhance those senses. Who makes the tools that enhance? Is the tool any better than the toolmaker?
Please do NOT depend upon science to provide a TRUE answer to your questions. The practitioners of science are as likely as not to give you a different answer tomorrow as they have given you today. That is the root of their quest and the ever-appealing and ever-elusive goal of their profession.
- lifelonglearner
September 3, 2008 4:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Science and|or Faith
I never said science is the definitive measure...it is one of many humanity possesses, perhaps being the least among these. However it would really move our knowledge of the Divine forward if we could get some tangible proof of His existence. My point is that it is logically impossible to ever do so.
- weedonald
September 3, 2008 5:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Faulty Argument
This entire argument is doomed to break down from the outset, and the cause is a simple misunderstanding of epistemology, what claims can be known, and how they can be known.
You cannot prove that an omnipotent God does not exist. It is impossible. Assume you could construct a perfect argument that proved that said God did not exist. Because that God is omnipotent, that God can do anything, and it therefore follows that he could still exist and simply manipulate the universe to appear that he did not. There is no rational response to the question of God that can disprove the existence of the being. Just like the liar problem, the concept itself breaks the rules of logic and reason by elevating the being in question above the constraints of any logical system.
The next position that the dedicated atheist will take is to call upon the scientific method (otherwise known as inductive reasoning with some special rules) to claim that we have no reason to believe that God does exist beyond the null hypothesis, which in their case defaults to their position. The problem in that case is that the null hypothesis itself creates a false dichotomy. Metaphysically, all statements must be either true or false, but epistemically it is possible that we may not be able to know the truth value of that proposition. I again present the example of the liar problem as proof that the set of questions for which our rational math cannot reach a conclusion is non-empty.
The question, as another individual alluded to, is what influence God would have on our lives, and the answer to that question is completely and entirely subjective because it is a question of personal valuation. You obviously could not cite God's Will as a plank of a rational argument justifying any condition or behavior, because the truth value of your peculiar interpretation of God's Will or even the existence thereof is unknowable. The question that we should be asking is what authority we, as individuals, should be able to afford our own peculiar and entirely subjective conclusions toward the question of God in our otherwise rational, objective world, and THAT is where the null hypothesis argument becomes relevant.
That being the case, an abstract discussion as to whether or not God exists at all between diverse individuals is clearly completely useless. No knowable, true conclusion can possibly result from that discussion. In all questions of public action or policy, the God concept must clearly be rejected in any diverse conversation (by which I mean a conversation involving individuals holding more than one belief between them with respect to the question) because it cannot be rationally justified as true at this point. I'll state for the record that I haven't seen any clear argument demonstrating that proving the existence of God would be impossible (in a similar vein to the argument I presented above which proves the atheist hypothesis to be rationally untenable), so I allow for the outside chance that some dedicated theist might concoct such an argument, but until then, the limits of our knowledge seem to imply that this entire discussion is useless.
- Brian Seiler
September 6, 2008 3:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you seem to have missed..
..the fact that yourargument states that the universe didn't exist in the potency of a former state to become this one. Nice that you think that, but it's seems presumptuous. makes me wonder, do you possess and t-shirts with a large capital A on it? A the scene of an accident, you can rush forward rip off your buttoned up shirt and proclaim.. 'if he/she dies, that's the end of the road..'
back to the point, (i really think an accompanied video with you blowing bubbles could have added some ground to your argument.)
I think the most direct and clear paradox of life is.. the lack of entropy. The perpetual state of dynamics, of life. in the very universe itself. I don't think you've ever considered that. I think it's the most blatantly profound truth in existence . With our limited understanding of physical science , this is an impossibility. So this big mysterious factor even fits with your terms, so one must conclude the likely hood that your conclusion is absolutely wrong. Our sceince says something had to do it.
brain waves, the fabric of time,... we have a lot we don't understand.. but evidently there is a something. ever dream of something that didn't happen yet? happens to people everyday. apparently, the physical world is just scratching the surface to reality.
now consider the reality of metaphysical ideas. These ideas, being substantial.. now do things make more sense?
- jxzac April 3, 2009 1:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unified Force
In the first place there has to be a first cause. We have to start somewhere. In science this is called the Unified Force. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed it is infinite. Science also teaches that it is beyond direct observation so it is unknowable. So the Unified Force splits into the Strong Force, the Weak Force and Electromagnetism, creating the Universe.There are then two questions. First, what is the difference between the Unified Force and God? In both cases we have an infinite, unknowable force creating the Universe. Second, what caused the Unified Force to break itself apart?
- mike1948
July 1, 2009 11:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
unified fields
"First, what is the difference between the Unified Force and God?"
The OT, NT, and the body of Christian Theology.
It did not create man out of clay, build a garden, drown everyone, part the Red Sea, send it's only son...
"Second, what caused the Unified Force to break itself apart?"
The cooling / expanding universe.
The unified force did not create anything, it was just the force that acted on matter before the universe cooled to the point that it decayed.
- MrBook
July 26, 2009 9:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
a straw man.
First of all the Unified Force is the same as God. For you to treat God just as some anthropomorphic straw man that you can knock down is just silly.
- mike1948
July 26, 2009 10:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
straw
You are the one who is anthropomorphizing the Unified Field theories... I just pointed out that the OT, NT, and the totality of Christian theology do not agree with your statements.
- MrBook
July 27, 2009 7:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anthropomorphizing?
I fail to see where I have anthropomorphized anything. I have simply said that the Unified Force/God is the infinite, unknowable force that created the universe. At this point the question is not Christian theology but whether there is a God. One thing at a time.
- mike1948
July 27, 2009 9:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Absolutely YES
God is, always has been, and always will be. That's a hard thing to wrap your mind around, but if we didn't dwell in a finite mindset, it would not be. Many of the same people, who reject God, or Creator, can easily phantom infinite parallel universes, intelligent beings from other planets or even galaxies, but not a Creator. For me, God has always been the only plausible explanation for life. If you really study the Bible, you'll find that it must be divinely inspired if only because of the obvious logical sequence obtained by so many authors over so many years. For me, however, I only have to look at a child or maybe something as small as a butterfly, to see the handiwork of God.
- chief45
August 31, 2009 7:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Explain to me
the obvious logical sequence.
- quantummechanik
September 1, 2009 9:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
read it
You shouldn't give orders to people you don't know, or anybody for that matter. If you want to learn about the Bible, I suggest you get one and read it yourself. It was not written by the same man at the same time, but with study you will find it relates to today's world as much as it did 2000 years ago. It does so in an order you will discover if you read it instead of baiting others for arguments.
- chief45
September 2, 2009 8:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Easy.
Don't get so defensive. Quantum is OK the one you have to watch out for is Book.
- mike1948
September 2, 2009 10:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I've read the bible a bunch
And I know who wrote it. I'm just saying, you assert something about the book, you should probably explain it.
If I said that the secret of life was found in old tapes of Captain Kangaroo, I would be, at the least, rude to not tell you what the secret of life is and how I found it.
- quantummechanik
September 2, 2009 11:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If there is no god then this is all we have in life and these stories
are just men who are fooled into thinking that there awaits a place one in heaven, one in hell, where all will be ascribed toward infinity, where those who have chosen Christ will be reunited with their loved ones and those who have denied Him will be eternally seperated from all that is good in life. If the atheists are right, and I dont beleive they are, then I wonder if these songs would ever have been writen, I wonder if these men would have lost their minds without this hope, I wonder how many have been saved because these men dared to beleive in Gd?
Amazing Grace by John Newton- Who was a murderous, drunken, immoral slave trader and captain of a slave ship. Who had been raised to know Gd but after his mothers death lost sight of Gd. His life is so wretched and brutal that not even his own crew liked him. And then one day he came across some literature on Jesus and remembered! A storm came up, like none hed ever seen before, and in the midst of that storm cried out to Gd and PTL Gd heard him!! He gave up slave trading and became a minister. Hallelujah!
What a Friend we have in Jesus by a man from Ireland who later moved to Canada, named Joseph Scriven. Joseph lost his first bride the day before their wedding when she was drowned in a tragic accident. He lost his second wife to pneumonia. He devoted his whole life to being the good samaritan and doing good works for others, he never accepted money for his charity.
Silent Night a Catholic priest in Austria named Joseph Mohr. His story is also quite moving.
It is well with my soul by a man from Chicago Illinois named Horatio Gates Spafford. I saved this one for last because he is my favorite one! He lost his only son to a childhood disease. He lost his business real estates in the great Chicago fire. He was a friend to Moody and was going to England to help in the great revival happening in England but was called back at the last minute and his wife and four daughters went ahead. The boat was rammed by another boat and sank. He lost all four daughters in the ocean . His wife was rescued and sent him a telegram that said, SAVED ALONE. When he went to join her he penned this song on the boat trip there. This is why I know that Gd loves us even when tragedy strikes and we have a faith that no tragedy can take from us, the hope of glory, the hope of eternal life through the blood of the lamb Jesus. I too can say, IT IS WELL WITH MY SOUL. My prayer is that my children will all be able to say that no matter the..quote
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
..
Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
AMEN. We are blessed in Jesus.
- TheLordrocks
October 23, 2009 3:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
it takes religion
Yet without religion there would have been no Inquisition, no witch hunts, no Crusades... all the countless crimes that take place in the name of a deity.
As the old saying goes... With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.
- MrBook
October 28, 2009 8:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.